September 25, 2012

“He’s gone beyond George W. Bush in drones, for example. He thinks the world is his plate, that national sovereignties mean nothing, drones can go anywhere. They can kill anybody that he suspects and every Tuesday he makes the call on who lives and who dies, supposed suspects in places like Yemen and Pakistan and Afghanistan, and that is a war crime and he ought to be held to account.”

Obama's foreign policy is totally awesome. It's Bush's foreign policy without the left bitching, except for these types of loons.

Moreover, Obama is the anti-Bush in the sense that Bush seemed sometimes reluctant, for fear of pissing off the left, to do what you might call Terrible Things That Needed To Be Done. Obama is always doing, for fear of pissing off the right, Terrible Things That Need To Be Done.

Too bad he's a 1970s limousine liberal Keynesian on economics or we'd have something here. Also, I don't believe he really believes in the Terrible Things. So that lessens the result, but just a bit.

This old crank. Read the article and see him dance around. Who's worse? Bush or Obama? Well Bush of course because Bush is stoopid and has never read the Constitution. Obama is bad because he's so intellectual so he should know better. Nader wants to scold Obama, he wants to matter, get his opinion out there in print, but notice he's not running against Obama the War Criminal. The war criminality must not be that important, I guess.

All the libs voting for Obama - just remember what you said about the evil neocons! The Rolling Stones even wrote a song about the evil neocons. And you are now them.

Just remember, for all the tal of the evil of Bush and co. you are signing off on a continuation of Bush policies and are not even blinking an eye. Hypocrites.

All because of side issues like gay marriage, which Obama wasn't even for until recently.

lets not EVER hear again from liberals about the war powers act, or the evils of phosphorous or drone strikes or how we have to stop airraiding villages etc. Because you guys have no credibility on this whatsoever.

Glenn Greenwald can get away with making the charge, but practically noone else.

Nader is not exactly the last word on foreign policy. A friend of mine is still driving his Corvair convertible. Nader is an expert on getting money from trial lawyers. Otherwise, just an overeducated dope.

The Corvair was the only thing Nader has ever been right about in his life.

And he even partly fucked that up: It wasn't unsafe. It drove like a piece of shit, but it was no less safe than any other car of its time.

That car was the most unreliable piece of junk I've ever owned (and I once had a Renault.) Oil-burning, air-cooled, rear-mounted flat-6 that stunk of an electrical fire. The last GM product I ever owned.

Well, Nader is consistent in more ways than one: There is the war crimes thing which is obvious. Less noticed is that he helps the "war criminal" get re-elected. When he ran in 2004, he really only could take votes away from Kerry, so he helped Bush. Now he is refraining from running, would only take votes that would have gone to Obama and is therefore helping the "war ciminal".

I'm not saying he made any difference to the election outcome, but he was very much working against his stated interests.

The left can choose to vote for Obama while still opposing his drone policy, without being hypocrites. It's not as if Romney would be better for us on that score!

And in a swing state, voting for a third party like the Greens is like giving a free vote to Romney. (Thanks, by the way, Mr. Nader, for handing Florida to George W. Bush!)

Since we have a system that reduces things to essentially two choices in November, it's necessary to look at the whole picture and find the candidate who comes closest to us on the issues. An analogy on the right would be a Ron Paul supporter who holds her nose to vote for Romney, because in her mind, Obama is worse.

Obama is by no means an ideal candidate for the left -- in fact the left is quite upset with him for some of the things he's done. (The drone war is one, and the lack of a public option in Obamacare is another.) But voting for him despite these disagreements isn't hypocrisy. It's just the system we have.

eatbees wrote:The left can choose to vote for Obama while still opposing his drone policy, without being hypocrites. It's not as if Romney would be better for us on that score!

Yeah, but the degree to which the left gave up on speaking truth to power over these issues is the true hypocricy. It was never anything more than a pure power grab.Really, why was Bush so bad, other than that he was a conservative?

Dude! There is a thread relating to John Paul Stevens below. You go on down there and tell everybody how Stevens was an old fuddy-duddy reactionary and that's why he was the deciding vote in Kelo. You go tell everybody down there your brilliant theories.

There's also a thread about marijuana, which should keep you busy for hours.

Nader is correct in this. Amazing to me that analysis of the causes of anti American violence in US media never bring this out. The people on Obama's killing ground never fail to point it out. I'm surprised only that they haven't managed to do more to us at home. The distinction between terrorist acts and killer drones is semantic.

Nader is correct in this. Amazing to me that analysis of the causes of anti American violence in US media never bring this out. The people on Obama's killing ground never fail to point it out. I'm surprised only that they haven't managed to do more to us at home. The distinction between terrorist acts and killer drones is semantic.

Do you think this is a novel thought -- that drones are similar to suicide bombers? Really?

Are you also 12?

It's absolutely true that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. It's also necessary that we kill like dogs every freedom fighter who fucks with Americans and, sometimes, American interests.

And in a swing state, voting for a third party like the Greens is like giving a free vote to Romney.

That is true only if you beleive the Dems own/are entitled to that vote, instead of having to earn it.

But voting for him despite these disagreements isn't hypocrisy. It's just the system we have.

It is the system we have because it is the system you are choosing. Our history has shown that third/fourth parties can have a major effect...from Woman's Suffrage to both the passage and repeal of Prohibition.

When you add in the fact that there wouldn't even by a Republican Party today if everyone had always been too scared to vote for a 3rd party, and it kinda throws your theory out the window.

What does it mean when folks earnestly believe you are a Muslim killing war criminal at the same time others are certain that you are part of a "project" to see the Muslim Brotherhood rise as America fails.

"Obama is the anti-Bush in the sense that Bush seemed sometimes reluctant, for fear of pissing off the left, to do what you might call Terrible Things That Needed To Be Done. Obama is always doing, for fear of pissing off the right, Terrible Things That Need To Be Done."

Sez who?

They are both guilty of Terrible Things That Don't Need To Be Done And Should Not Be Done.

I totally oppose Nader and his minones 100% of the time on 100% of the issues. But have some respect for him.

As wacky and fucked up as he is...he is consistant. No Clinton style sticking-his-finger-in-the-air to see what his position should be today. He is truly convicted to his positions. I respect that even if he is 100% wrong.

Also...the Democrat party tried to crush him in 2004 when he ran for President. Instead of using him, they went after him in a very nasty way as they thought he would take votes away from Jean Francias Query. You'll notice that the Republicans did not do that to...what's his name...in 1992.

The drones are being used with the permission of the host nation, so where's the violation of sovereignty?

Yep. Things are a little murky in Pakistan since we don't necessarily have official permission, but at the same time we have permission. Hell, they were letting us base drones on their soil until the media found out.

What really bothers Nader is the same thing that bothered Osama bin Laden, at least based on the documents he left behind. The drones are effective, and they're relatively cheap. We can keep this up forever, basically, and Nader wishes we would stop.

Eustace Chilke said...Nader is correct in this. Amazing to me that analysis of the causes of anti American violence in US media never bring this out. The people on Obama's killing ground never fail to point it out. I'm surprised only that they haven't managed to do more to us at home. The distinction between terrorist acts and killer drones is semantic.

================We are at war, shithead!The proper answer to "an eye for an eye" is not "we will not go down that road because we are Too Good and pure for that and bound by mercy in our criminal laws"

The answer in war is both eyes for an eye, until the enemy is all blind and helpless and not demanding merciful treatment as a right lawyers will get them....but at our utter mercy.

I would tell you that in the AF, unrestrained by any rules on use of force...scenarios had Egypt as one of the 2-3 most vulnerable countries I heard war plans existed for.

In terms of just non-nuke strikes, but outside Hague and Geneva - 2/3rds of Egypt would be starving and in permanent blackout, half their arable land flooded and no military sea or air assets left to demine the harbors or stop us from blowing up critical remaining infrastructure - within a month of us hitting them with all we got.

"Obama has taken one method, assassination, and made it his whole foreign policy.

Yes Murder Incorporated indeed.

And that is why the Middle East is in riot not some movie trailer."

In a way, yes. I think the worst elements in Islam either figured out, or stumbled upon the idea that if they act as a group large enough to be confused with, or just be part of, a demonstration, then Obama can't assassinate the whole crowd. They take the battle where the U.S. won't follow: into the population. Not after Iraq. Not again. Not now.

The problem with Obama's strategy is it just got defeated last week, OR that movie really sucked.

What does it mean when folks earnestly believe you are a Muslim killing war criminal at the same time others are certain that you are part of a "project" to see the Muslim Brotherhood rise as America fails

How stupid do you have to be to think supporting the Muslim Brotherhood absolutely precludes either killing Muslims or being a war criminal?

I never thought I would agree with Ralph Nadar but I do. It is a small step from the Patriot Act used against Terrorists and using it against US citizens. It is a small step to using these drones against us, at least those of us he doesnt find useful. He is Valkyrie.

Bryan: That's actually a point I used to not consider, but now, I really think if we want an adversarial press that will check government excesses, we either need to get new journalists or a new administration. I only get to vote for one of those.

Obama is by no means an ideal candidate for the left -- in fact the left is quite upset with him for some of the things he's done. (The drone war is one, and the lack of a public option in Obamacare is another.) But voting for him despite these disagreements isn't hypocrisy. It's just the system we have.

Except. . .the left caterwauled for years that Gitmo was a stain on our national honor, that each soldier's death was a horrible tragedy, the PATRIOT Act was the worst thing since the Alien and Sedition Acts and so on ad nauseam.

The hypocrisy is this - where are the massive protests? Where are the courageous librarians refusing to allow federal agents access to their records? Where are the nightly "grim casualty" counts? Save for a very few sincere souls, the entire "anti-war" movement was nothing but a bunch of angry Democrats engaging in BDS orgies. It was a fake and fraud from the beginning, as the left's silence proves.

Lying the country into a war is much worse...nice try though.

Care to point out any of those so-called "lies?" And shrieking NO WMD! instantly disqualifies you.

Hey, I have no problems with drone strikes on terrorists. I just thought the left was above such neo con murdering.Keep driving your priuses and patting yourself on the back about how progressive you are. But note, you are supporters of assassinations wihtout due process, you don't really care if Guantanamo closes, you don't really care about the war powers act, or phosphorous. All of those talking points and all that sheer Bush hatred was just a pose. Speaking truth to power - just a pose.Fuck you liberals.

There is a difference between freedom fighters and terrorists. Freedom fighters engage the armed forces and police of an oppressive government. Terrorist avoid armed conflict and instead attack soft civilian targets to incite terror in the general population, hoping to weaken support for the government. Of course it's possible to be both, but idea that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter is wrong. They are not the same.

BTW, the Green Party already has a presidential candidate. Her name is Dr. Lodge. I think her first name is Jean.

Carthage? Insane. Why would we wish to be the New Roman Empire? This crap is half of what's leading the US into decline. As we go down for the count some people will still be screaming "We're at war shithead. What are you? Nuts?"

Endless war is a prime condition for the rise of dictatorship. You call it war if you want. I know murder when I see it. I don't call it murder only when they do it.

Nevermind that it's criminal. It's dumb. Those people would care nearly nothing about us if left to their own business. Damned if I can figure out why we mess around in their business to begin with.

Listening to hysterical flag wavers at home is nearly as unbearable as BO checking his Tuesday hit list or the poisonous fulminations of some half feral Imam. It's hard to imagine that I'm the same species as any of those types and embarrassing to admit.

Corporations per se are not evil. He treats them as if they are. But the Scott toilet paper concern gives us a very solid product for instance. There are many good corporations. I like taking my car to large corporate chains because there is oversight. It's the rinky dink tiny one-man car mechanics that are more likely to have no ethical standards or boundaries. Nader is a rogue. God knows what he would do if he were elected to major office. Obama and Romney at least have large constituencies and a history that give standards and a sesne of a huge assembled wisdom going back a century or more. What has Nader got? He's eclectic and too negative, and his standards are all over the place. I like the two major parties. These splinter parties are a bunch of angry fruitcakes. I also prefer large denominational churches as opposed to tiny splinter groups run by some charismatic Jim Jones.

Consistently wrong - I think Obama's no more a "war criminal" than Bush was, because none of the crap Nader's nattering about is actually a "war crime" - but at least consistent, rather than an opportunist.